SHILA DAS Vs. JYOTRIMOYEE BISWAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present Appeal has been directed against the judgment and order dated 2.12.2008 passed by the South 24 Parganas District Consumer Forum in D.F. Case No. 80 of 2007 wherein the OP No. 1/Appellant was directed to execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in favour of the complainants along with a direction upon the OP Nos. 1 and 2 to pay compensation to the OP No. 3.

(2.) THE Complainants/Respondents' case before the learned District Forum, in brief, was that the OP No. 3, i. e. Sri Manabendra Nath Roy, who happened to be the owner of the landed property, entered into an agreement of development with the OP No. 2 and all the requisite formalities were observed therein for raising a four -storeyed building project. In the said agreement there was a clause that in the event of any defect for unforeseen circumstances the OP No. 2 will be entitled to depute or engage any other developer or promoter to complete the construction work in the same terms and conditions as entered into between the OP No. 2 and the said Sri Manabendra Nath Roy, i.e. OP No. 3. As the OP No. 2 experienced some inconveniences in proceeding with the construction work, he assigned the agreement so entered into between the OP No. 2 and the OP No. 3 to OP No. 1, i.e. Smt. Shila Das (Appellant) to complete the construction project. The complainants were the intending purchasers of a flat in the said construction project and entered into an agreement against valuable consideration for purchasing a self - contained flat and in the process they paid 50% of the consideration money to the OP No. 1. Thereafter it is the further case of the complainants that in regular instalments the entire balance amount was paid to the OP No.1 and in due course of time the complainants were put into possession of the flat in question. But in spite of repeated requests and demands the OPs did not execute and register the Deed of Conveyance in respect of the flat in question. Finding no other alternative the complainants filed the complaint case thereby seeking necessary reliefs against the OPs.

(3.) THE OPs contested the case by filing separate written objections contending inter alia that the petition of complaint was not maintainable. The Consumer Forum was not the appropriate Forum for seeking reliefs by the complainants as the controversy between the parties was of civil nature and the Civil Court is the appropriate Forum. In this regard the OP No. 2 took up the plea that as the agreement in question was assigned to the OP No. 1, the complainants were not entitled to any relief against the OP No. 2 and that the OP No. 3 took up the plea that he was and is always ready and willing to perform his part of the contract, but the other OPs are not willing to perform their part of the contract. Therefore, he should not be held responsible for any negligence or deficiency in service and under this ground the petition is liable to be rejected.